Cultic Studies Journal, Volume 17, 2000, Page 123
Book Reviews
The Suggestibility of Children's Recollections: Implications for Eyewitness
Testimony. John Doris. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.
This book, published by the American Psychological Association, is a compilation of essays,
commentaries, and empirical research studies presented at the 1991 Cornell Conference on
the Suggestibility of Children‘s Recollections. The conference was an attempt to wade
through the seemingly contradictory findings of various memory researchers and arrive at
some consensus on important questions. These included (1) how accurate are the
testimonies of child witnesses in terms of events (2) do children misinterpret neutral events
(3) under what conditions are inaccuracy and misperception more likely to occur? The editor
admits, however, that this goal was only partially accomplished in that confusion and
contradiction still remain. Unfortunately, the book lacks a final summarizing chapter that
would identify the points of consensus versus disagreement.
Readers of this volume of almost 200 pages are treated to a variety of empirical research
vignettes of primarily staged events under laboratory conditions to which children of various
ages (pre-adolescents) are exposed. Findings aside, the creativity of the research designs
alone make for interesting reading.
Perhaps the major asset of the book is the identification of the many methodological
obstacles inherent in research of this kind. Just trying to control for the numerous ecological
and demographic variables that influence memory encoding, recall, and interpretation is,
indeed, a daunting task. These variables might loosely be categorized as child witness
variables (e.g. developmental level, participant vs. observer, level of arousal) and interview
context variables (e.g. interviewer skills and qualities, time and place of interview).
Reliability of findings is easily compromised in that replicating similar studies that control for
the same variables is difficult to achieve.
The authors admit, too, that there is the major question of ―ecological validity‖ (closely akin
to the concept of external validity), that is, how generalizable are the findings of a
laboratory experiment to an actual target population? Ceci highlights this issue in his
discussion of child sexual abuse cases, reminding us that these traumatic conditions, which
may include bodily injury, threats, and sexual arousal, cannot be duplicated artificially.
In their discussion, Goodman and Clarke-Stewart attempt to explore the issue of children‘s
suggestibility in relation to sexual abuse. Since they could not design a real life abuse
situation, they report on a simulated situation (children undergoing a physical examination
by a pediatrician) and then built in features of child abuse investigations. Their research
highlights the complex task of assisting child witnesses to disclose their information. In
follow-up interviews with the children the majority failed to reveal that genital/anal touching
had been part of the medical experience. More of the subjects were able to disclose upon
specific questioning. However, even with the additional prompting ―the children failed to
disclose it 64% of the time, whereas the chance of obtaining a false report of genital/anal
touching was only 1%, even when leading questions were asked.‖ (P. 99).
This, of course, highlights the dilemma that investigators face in questioning children. On
the one hand it appeared that ―leading questions were often necessary to elicit essential
information‖ and that children were more likely to disclose this information when the
interviewer made ―strong and persistent‖ suggestions.
On the disadvantaged side, of course, is the possibility that leading questions might elicit
inaccurate information and/or misinterpretation of the events. However, the research
suggests that susceptibility to manipulation is more likely in non-sexual abuse versus sexual

Cultic Studies Journal, Volume 17, 2000, Page 124
abuse scenarios In addition, Goodman and Clarke-Stewart‘s review suggests that children
are more likely to be swayed by interviewer suggestions when they are younger, when they
are questioned after a long delay, when they feel intimidated by the interviewer, when the
interviewer makes strong and repeated suggestions, and when another interviewer makes
similar suggestions. It appears that scenarios in which children are most likely to disclose
accurate information is in the presence of a non-threatening interviewer who asks questions
that the child can easily comprehend.
Perhaps one of the most important discussion for readers of the CSJ is Douglas Peters‘
chapter on the influence of stress and arousal. His research concludes with the statement
that ―heightened arousal never increased the recognition of recall accuracy of subjects. ….
{the belief, widely held by judges and jurors}….that high arousal facilitates the eyewitness
accuracy of children does not appear to rest on solid empirical ground.‖ (P. 75) This
statement is supports statements made by trauma researchers such as van der Kolk that
high stress levels flood the body and brain with cortisol, thereby inhibiting important brain
structures that store and later retrieve memory components of traumatic events. This
argues against the claims made by false memory proponents that high arousal events
(specifically child sexual abuse) would be more likely (rather than less likely) to be
remembered.
An overall conclusion of the book is that the experimental conditions, and most particularly
interviewer skills and qualities, affect children‘s testimony. For instance, as one might
imagine, there appears to be an inverse relationship between accuracy of recall and delay of
questioning. The potential for intervening variables to influence a child‘s memory and
perception are increased when there is a long delay before interviewing a child witness. The
place where the child is interviewed is also important. While contexts resembling the
original event may elicit more accurate information, this accuracy may be compromised if
the context elicits negative feelings (e.g. a police station). The nature of questions asked is
also critical. While many researchers found that specific and often closed-ended questions
elicited more information, accuracy did not necessarily improve. Choice of language and
repetition of questions were also found to affect children‘s reports.
In an effort to provide a more empirical way of assessing validity, Raskin and Esplin
designed an instrument known as the Criteria-Based Content Analysis (CBCA), to assess the
child‘s motivation in providing the sought-after information. They propose that this variable,
too, i.e. motivation, may color the child‘s interpretation or accuracy of events. The validity
and reliability of this instrument was challenged in subsequent commentaries.
One of the areas I found lacking in the book was a discussion of the types of memory that
are currently being examined and discussed in the professional literature --working
memory, short-term memory, and long-term memory. There is also no discussion of how
right brain versus left brain information processing might influence childhood recollections,
e.g. how traumatic memories may continue to ―reside‖ in the body and get ―reenacted‖
nonverbally. Granted, under laboratory conditions these children could not be traumatically
exposed however, a theoretical discussion of relevant findings from the field of
neuroscience would have rounded out this volume. In this vein, I was hopeful as I read the
chapter by Brainard and Ornstein on ―Children‘s memory for witnessed events: the
developmental backdrop‖ as it seemed to promise more elaboration of the contribution of
neurophysiological aspects. In this I was disappointed. Although they began with the
promising statement, ―Children cannot provide information about events that cannot be
remembered,‖ (P. 10) they did not follow-through with what that might mean. Trauma
researchers have demonstrated how memories unconsciously experienced and encoded are
―remembered‖ by the body and how they push for expression through the clinical
phenomenon known as ―the return of the repressed.‖